McLaren Life banner

21 - 35 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
188 Posts
In my experience, higher-mileage exotics are often well sorted compared to their garage queen counterparts. There's no better way to uncover what's going to fail than a series of frequent and variable tests, aka pushing on miles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rnixon

·
Registered
2018 570GT Sports Pack in Polaris Blue
Joined
·
12 Posts
I think somewhere in old Porsche lore - the "around 4,000 mile/year" to hold an excellent rating/value..... I dunno where I read that - but I've tried to hold around that number on my Porsche cars.... I have no idea what the mileage/year for McLaren's are - but I would imagine it'd be about half of that? At least until McLaren can square away it's business model.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
The McLaren community likes to preach that higher mileage cars are more likely to be sorted out and problem-free for the secondary owner. While that may be true, many people buying McLaren cars in the secondary market are coming from other brands that don't share the same sentiment.

Like it or not, mileage makes a difference and you're not going to get the same money for a car with 15K miles as one with 5K miles with the same spec.

I personally think it's great to see so many Mac cars for sale with over 20K miles. It's always cool to see supercars being driven. What you don't get in dollars when you sell it, you got tenfold through the joy of driving it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,216 Posts
This is the very reason open markets exist. The value of mileage is exactly what it should be, by definition.

I believe Ferrari, when determining if a car can be eligible for extra warranty, starts doing compression tests at 30k miles. So that gives you something of a data point.
ferrari lease residuals (even on a used car) is based on the number of miles on the car). They are eligible for better lease rates through Ferrari financial . It costs less to lease a higher priced Ferrari then a mclaren due to mainly mileage restrictions which In turn creates a higher residual , which in turn causes lower lease payments . I’ve never done the math but the lease payments on a $100k higher Higher priced Ferrari would be a lower payment .... hence why there are much more barely driven f cars for sale .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
326 Posts
I’d love to drive each car more and rack up the miles but my office was 4 miles from home, now I work out of the house. We have 6 cars in the family. There is only so many miles you can put a car in my situation in a year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
577 Posts
In life, it's very rare that 'all other things are equal'. What you typically see is some garage queen car with little miles that sits and rots. And rotting can cause problems.

On the other end of the spectrum you'll see cars that are used well to the point that the car runs better than new, and on the other end of the spectrum, run by someone that doesn't drive well and abused the hell out of the car.

It's tough to know which extreme you're getting with someone that put a lot of miles on the car. But when you get someone that put good miles on the car, and basically debugged the car for you, that's the car I'd prefer to get.

But it's like a box of chocolates. Tough to know what you're really getting.
Interesting to read the many comments that prefer a car with many miles to a car with few miles.

I claim there is the following formula: From the perspective of a prospective buyer, a car with a few miles is clearly at an advantage. The question of what the car has had to experience is much easier to answer. This feeling of security to buy something unused is hard to beat. The best stories, the most faithful dog's eye and the most outstanding promises do not help.

From the point of view of a potential seller it is of course the case that his car with many miles is the best by far, because all teething troubles have been eliminated, it has been run in perfectly and it has been driven exclusively "healthy" miles. Can be anything. But let's be honest: how many cucumbers with many kilometres, countless owners and, if possible, still tuned without it being revealed to the buyer, ruin exactly this position?

Then it's obvious: for absolute exotics, where there are/have been practically only unique pieces (e.g. Ferrari 250 GTO) and which again have special histories, different rules apply.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
ferrari lease residuals (even on a used car) is based on the number of miles on the car). They are eligible for better lease rates through Ferrari financial . It costs less to lease a higher priced Ferrari then a mclaren due to mainly mileage restrictions which In turn creates a higher residual , which in turn causes lower lease payments . I’ve never done the math but the lease payments on a $100k higher Higher priced Ferrari would be a lower payment .... hence why there are much more barely driven f cars for sale .
One of the attractions of the McLaren brand over Ferrari is that the McLaren market seems to care about miles less (anecdotally). The Ferrari guys seem to truly obsess over it.
 

·
2012 MP4-12C
Joined
·
8,228 Posts
Interesting to read the many comments that prefer a car with many miles to a car with few miles.

I claim there is the following formula: From the perspective of a prospective buyer, a car with a few miles is clearly at an advantage. The question of what the car has had to experience is much easier to answer. This feeling of security to buy something unused is hard to beat. The best stories, the most faithful dog's eye and the most outstanding promises do not help.

From the point of view of a potential seller it is of course the case that his car with many miles is the best by far, because all teething troubles have been eliminated, it has been run in perfectly and it has been driven exclusively "healthy" miles. Can be anything. But let's be honest: how many cucumbers with many kilometres, countless owners and, if possible, still tuned without it being revealed to the buyer, ruin exactly this position?

Then it's obvious: for absolute exotics, where there are/have been practically only unique pieces (e.g. Ferrari 250 GTO) and which again have special histories, different rules apply.
I think your assessment is generally correct. It’s easier to know quantity over quality of driving issues. We agree. But I think mclarens disprove your common cases, having had one. if I were buying a 12c for example, no way on earth I’m buying a car with 1000 miles on it. I know what that means. nearly guaranteed issues.

I’d much rather get a car that was regularly driven, so like 15000 miles at least, and hope to assess quality of those miles by talking to the owner and inspecting the car. I would prefer the 15000 mile model to the 1000 mile model. That said, would I prefer one that has 15000 to 150000, sure.
 

·
2012 MP4-12C
Joined
·
8,228 Posts
I think somewhere in old Porsche lore - the "around 4,000 mile/year" to hold an excellent rating/value..... I dunno where I read that - but I've tried to hold around that number on my Porsche cars.... I have no idea what the mileage/year for McLaren's are - but I would imagine it'd be about half of that? At least until McLaren can square away it's business model.
roughly 3000 miles a year seems to be the mark for “driven enough to work out any problems, but not excessively driven”.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
577 Posts
I think your assessment is generally correct. It’s easier to know quantity over quality of driving issues. We agree. But I think mclarens disprove your common cases, having had one. if I were buying a 12c for example, no way on earth I’m buying a car with 1000 miles on it. I know what that means. nearly guaranteed issues.

I’d much rather get a car that was regularly driven, so like 15000 miles at least, and hope to assess quality of those miles by talking to the owner and inspecting the car. I would prefer the 15000 mile model to the 1000 mile model. That said, would I prefer one that has 15000 to 150000, sure.
If i listen to you I think the situation at McLaren seems to be a little bit specific. Subject of "above-average depreciation". Already your statement "roughly 3000 miles a year seems to be the mark for "driven enough to work out any problems, but not excessively driven"" points to a very special situation. You tell the buyer "be generally careful, these cars come from the factory with faults". Do I buy a car that only becomes faultless after a lot of driving combined with several visits to the dealer? With this argument you strengthen the fact that a McLaren generally declines in value very quickly, whether with many or few miles, you say "these cars aren't solid build". Such an argumentation actually leads directly to a sales disaster. You won't find these arguments at Ferrari, there it's quite simple, many miles = less value, e basta.

If you are reading this, don't you think that the argument of many miles = more value is very questionable in this context? A very expensive product that must first be made faultless by the customer? If I hear something like that from the salesman I go straight to Ferrari...

A little hint: I bought my 650S new in 2016. Until today I have only driven a few miles with this car. From mile zero away I had absolutely no problems with this baby, simply directly from the factory the perfect car. Why shouldn't I now demand considerably more for it when I sell it than for a comparable 650S with five times more kilometres on the clock? Where the seller says "this car has no more faults now"?

I can't ask much for my car compared to a Ferrari exactly because of these stupid stories that a McLaren only matures at the customer's site, that a McLaren is always defective. Idiotic stories which in my case aren't true at all.
 

·
2012 MP4-12C
Joined
·
8,228 Posts
If i listen to you I think the situation at McLaren seems to be a little bit specific. Subject of "above-average depreciation". Already your statement "roughly 3000 miles a year seems to be the mark for "driven enough to work out any problems, but not excessively driven"" points to a very special situation. You tell the buyer "be generally careful, these cars come from the factory with faults". Do I buy a car that only becomes faultless after a lot of driving combined with several visits to the dealer? With this argument you strengthen the fact that a McLaren generally declines in value very quickly, whether with many or few miles, you say "these cars aren't solid build". Such an argumentation actually leads directly to a sales disaster. You won't find these arguments at Ferrari, there it's quite simple, many miles = less value, e basta.

If you are reading this, don't you think that the argument of many miles = more value is very questionable in this context? A very expensive product that must first be made faultless by the customer? If I hear something like that from the salesman I go straight to Ferrari...

A little hint: I bought my 650S new in 2016. Until today I have only driven a few miles with this car. From mile zero away I had absolutely no problems with this baby, simply directly from the factory the perfect car. Why shouldn't I now demand considerably more for it when I sell it than for a comparable 650S with five times more kilometres on the clock? Where the seller says "this car has no more faults now"?

I can't ask much for my car compared to a Ferrari exactly because of these stupid stories that a McLaren only matures at the customer's site, that a McLaren is always defective. Idiotic stories which in my case aren't true at all.
Partly agree partly disagree. These cars do come with faults from the factory. As do Ferrari's and porches and lambos. First I disagree you wont see that in other forums. I most certainly did and do. Ferraris of old were known to burst into flames. Porsche released a GT3 with a 100% engine failure rate. Lambo aventador transmissions were made of chocolate before 2014 or so. And EVERYONE knew it. Heck, basically every first year model corvette has a ton of known problems (eg 1st year C6 corvettes had issues with seals on the removable roof--they usually fix these known issues by the 3rd year of the model run). All these makes may not have the 'reputation' you are attributing to mclaren, but that's just because the people around them are less honest IMO because they worry about values.

Ferrari is known to black ball owners that even dare drive their cars against others or weight them. They are basically disgusting scum, so that many of Ferrari's atrocities are hidden from being screamed is so much intentional mafia like control.

It's one of the things I like about mclaren owners, many dont care about depreciation, drive the cars, speak out about the problems, but also about the great things. I think mclarens are way more reliable in general than the other exotics. They seem to be pretty bullet proof as far as running and getting you from point A to B and I think they have done an incredible job as a young company.

That said, their cars have issues like all other cars. And earlier models have more issues than 2nd red year runs of those models. So your 650 is very likely to have less issues than a 2012 12C.

Anyway, all those makes are known to have problems from the factory. Heck even Tesla's come with problems from the factory. All these owners can iron out most of the problems by driving them a bit and getting them warranty serviced.

Of course not all mclarens have problems. Only Porsche managed a 100% failure rate with their engines. Most of the time, most makes have much smaller number of problems. I'm super happy that your low mileage 650 has no problems. And I suspect you're not alone and many others have mclarens with absolutely no problems whatsoever.

Anyway, if you find it 'stupid' that cars that are worked out with more miles than cars with almost no mile... fair enough, youre entitled to your opinion. I disagree. I think cars that have been driven a bit more regularly are likely to be more reliable. You could be right, I could be wrong. But that's my opinion of it from all I've seen in my experience. Your experiences and interpretations may very fairly be different.

Such as life. Not everyone sees things the same way. And that doesn't necessarily make people that see things differently bad in any way. Fair and good minded people can disagree, and often do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
577 Posts
Partly agree partly disagree. These cars do come with faults from the factory. As do Ferrari's and porches and lambos. First I disagree you wont see that in other forums. I most certainly did and do. Ferraris of old were known to burst into flames. Porsche released a GT3 with a 100% engine failure rate. Lambo aventador transmissions were made of chocolate before 2014 or so. And EVERYONE knew it. Heck, basically every first year model corvette has a ton of known problems (eg 1st year C6 corvettes had issues with seals on the removable roof--they usually fix these known issues by the 3rd year of the model run). All these makes may not have the 'reputation' you are attributing to mclaren, but that's just because the people around them are less honest IMO because they worry about values.

Ferrari is known to black ball owners that even dare drive their cars against others or weight them. They are basically disgusting scum, so that many of Ferrari's atrocities are hidden from being screamed is so much intentional mafia like control.

It's one of the things I like about mclaren owners, many dont care about depreciation, drive the cars, speak out about the problems, but also about the great things. I think mclarens are way more reliable in general than the other exotics. They seem to be pretty bullet proof as far as running and getting you from point A to B and I think they have done an incredible job as a young company.

That said, their cars have issues like all other cars. And earlier models have more issues than 2nd red year runs of those models. So your 650 is very likely to have less issues than a 2012 12C.

Anyway, all those makes are known to have problems from the factory. Heck even Tesla's come with problems from the factory. All these owners can iron out most of the problems by driving them a bit and getting them warranty serviced.

Of course not all mclarens have problems. Only Porsche managed a 100% failure rate with their engines. Most of the time, most makes have much smaller number of problems. I'm super happy that your low mileage 650 has no problems. And I suspect you're not alone and many others have mclarens with absolutely no problems whatsoever.

Anyway, if you find it 'stupid' that cars that are worked out with more miles than cars with almost no mile... fair enough, youre entitled to your opinion. I disagree. I think cars that have been driven a bit more regularly are likely to be more reliable. You could be right, I could be wrong. But that's my opinion of it from all I've seen in my experience. Your experiences and interpretations may very fairly be different.

Such as life. Not everyone sees things the same way. And that doesn't necessarily make people that see things differently bad in any way. Fair and good minded people can disagree, and often do.
Let us not talk about right and wrong, I like the discussion with you.

Yes, my McLaren has only a few miles and works perfectly, right from the start. I also own a Scuderia, which has many kilometres and also works perfectly. In other words: I know both sides of the argument. Recently I tested the market value of the Scuderia. You won't believe it, of course I used exactly your words: only a Scuderia that is always "healthy" in motion is perfect, with a garage queen you have to expect bearing damage etc. I had no chance, the buyers simply trusted the cars with practically no kilometres on the clock. Pure buyer psychology: A car has a certain life expectancy and with every mile you approach the end. Hard to argue against that.

I had another experience of a special kind with my first Maserati Granturismo. I bought the car new in 2014. In 2018 I sold it with 145'000km. That is brutally much for a Granturismo. These are usually cars for the weekend and have accordingly few kilometres on the clock. I have used the Granturismo as an everyday car. You won't believe it, I had absolutely no problems with the car. Now it was that this car was very well equipped. When my car was once in service, a young prospective buyer saw this car and told the dealer; if this car should ever be offered for sale he will buy it immediately. He knew from the dealer that this car is very well maintained. In 2018 he bought the car despite the unusually high mileage. My Granturismo did not spend one day at the dealer.

What do I mean; everything is possible, there is no right or wrong. It depends on which side you are standing on at the moment.

How do you think I feel about your 12C not being traded for at least three times its current market value? Because when I look at the pure facts, I quickly come to the conclusion that a 12C is still an absolutely outstanding car today, still a perfect mix of different superior high end technologies! Still today the blueprint of all McLaren's and benchmark for virtually every competitor. But unfortunately its value has been talked bad for far too long.
 

·
2012 MP4-12C
Joined
·
8,228 Posts
Let us not talk about right and wrong, I like the discussion with you.
Thanks I enjoy our discussions as well!

Yes, my McLaren has only a few miles and works perfectly, right from the start. I also own a Scuderia, which has many kilometres and also works perfectly. In other words: I know both sides of the argument. Recently I tested the market value of the Scuderia. You won't believe it, of course I used exactly your words: only a Scuderia that is always "healthy" in motion is perfect, with a garage queen you have to expect bearing damage etc. I had no chance, the buyers simply trusted the cars with practically no kilometres on the clock. Pure buyer psychology: A car has a certain life expectancy and with every mile you approach the end. Hard to argue against that.
Well it may be hard, but I'll argue against that. These cars can run FOREVER given enough care. So the engine is rated for 200,000 miles, you dont throw the engine away, you can buy a new one, or rebuild it. There is the potential to keep the cars running indefinitely given enough money and care. That said, it's just not worth the money in most cases to keep throwing money to rebuild these cars. So over time the numbers dwindle, and I agree your assertion is the majority case.

I had another experience of a special kind with my first Maserati Granturismo. I bought the car new in 2014. In 2018 I sold it with 145'000km. That is brutally much for a Granturismo. These are usually cars for the weekend and have accordingly few kilometres on the clock. I have used the Granturismo as an everyday car. You won't believe it, I had absolutely no problems with the car. Now it was that this car was very well equipped. When my car was once in service, a young prospective buyer saw this car and told the dealer; if this car should ever be offered for sale he will buy it immediately. He knew from the dealer that this car is very well maintained. In 2018 he bought the car despite the unusually high mileage. My Granturismo did not spend one day at the dealer.

What do I mean; everything is possible, there is no right or wrong. It depends on which side you are standing on at the moment.
Yes, I very much agree. Crazy world. Anything is possible. I wills state again, that I think your arguments are like to to be correct/right the majority of the time. I think savvy buys that know a lot can alter this. For example, it was a 'known thing' that 1st year C6 corvettes had more issues. So in addition to asking specific questions (did they replace the roof seals, did they fix a, b, c common issues) that what would happen is the cars that happened to be well sorted of these known issues, they had higher mileage. That said, corvettes are so easy and cheap to fix, I think what you say still largely holds true, that a good number of even those savvy purchasers were also savvy enough to know, they could fix those issues cheaply.

Here we start to see why mclaren becomes more the exception, because fixing many of these minor issues is so much a pain, and so costly, it's worth eating more miles than risk dealing with the ramifications of an unsorted car.

How do you think I feel about your 12C not being traded for at least three times its current market value? Because when I look at the pure facts, I quickly come to the conclusion that a 12C is still an absolutely outstanding car today, still a perfect mix of different superior high end technologies! Still today the blueprint of all McLaren's and benchmark for virtually every competitor. But unfortunately its value has been talked bad for far too long.
I'm ok with this. In my head my car has absolutely no market value. The 80k or whatever it is now, isn't worth my hassle to sell. I also love the car and am keeping it around for that reason. I value it a lot, and no one else 'gets' that car. So I'm he richer, and everyone the poorer. That said, there is another reason. Parts are now getting very scarce and MORE expensive for the 12C as they are not really making more specific 12C parts. That can push even more people to wanting a car with some more mileage on it.

One of the things I do not know, and can change things here is, how long a life does the 12C engine last? A Honda engine easily does 200,000 miles. I dont know how long a mclaren engine lasts. I think I've heard of several that have passed the 100,000 mile mark with no issues. Which is rather impressive for this level of car. If these cars can go to 150,000 miles before you need to get a new transmission/engine... it becomes such a high number, that the useful life starts to seem like infinity on cars that have 25000 miles and that is consider (high mileage).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,216 Posts
One of the attractions of the McLaren brand over Ferrari is that the McLaren market seems to care about miles less (anecdotally). The Ferrari guys seem to truly obsess over it.
I'm fairly active on instagram... I have access to a lot of sales people, mechanics, re-sellers, brokers, other owners and general enthusiasts. People send me many direct messages based on some of the stories that I post.

This is a quote from a Ferrari general manager at a U.S. store:

"he and I have been talking about that 488. Nice car, he's buried, but, it qualifies for the 10% residual bump for the miles. If someone is looking for a cheap(er) payment through a Ferrari dealer, that is the ticket.

-------------------------

on the ferrari side of things; there is a big difference in residual values that are used to calculate lease payments for low mile cars.

On the mclaren side, there isn't any such thing.
 
21 - 35 of 35 Posts
Top