1986 Pontiac Grand Prix Low Mile 2dr Cp 1 Owner Clean Window Sticker Orig Title on 2040-cars

Auto blog

'We're not a hedge fund': Porsche plans to curtail speculators and flippers

A sizable number of speculators view cars as an investment. Rare or unusual models are quickly snapped up and either parked for years or flipped for a profit. Cars from automakers like Porsche and Ferrari are more prone than others, and at least some people behind these models are getting a bit tired of it. While it's difficult to police what goes on after you sell a car, Porsche has some plans that might curtail the problem before it starts. Andreas Preuninger, the head of GT road-car development and the man behind the new 911 GT3, spoke to Car and Driver at a recent event. "I personally like to see my cars being used," he said. "That's what we build them for. They are just too good to be left to stand and collect dust." One recent example of this rampant speculation is the 911 R. While the special manual-only model sold for $185,950 when new, used versions were selling for nearly $1.3 million just months after it went on sale. While the car is a masterpiece and an instant classic, a good number will be parked and simply used as art and not the rolling testaments to the man/machine interface they were intended to be. The concern over valuations has become so fierce that some owners are upset that Porsche is offering the new 911 GT3 with a manual transmission, fearing that it may hurt the value of the 911 R. "When I said we're not a hedge fund, I'm talking to those people who are yelling at us for offering the manual transmission similar to the R," Preuninger said. "But if there are people wanting to buy cars like that, then as a company we should try to fulfill that, to meet that demand." It seems Porsche is keeping a close eye on who is flipping cars. Since there is often far more demand than supply with certain models, the German automaker has a name for every car before it's built. Buyers with bad reputations might not even make the wait list. Related Video:

This or That: 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 vs. 1984 Pontiac Fiero

Welcome to another round of This or That, where two Autoblog editors pick a topic, pick a side and pull no punches. Last round pitted yours truly against Associate Editor Brandon Turkus, and my chosen VW Vanagon Syncro narrowly defeated Brandon's 1987 Land Rover. In fact, it was, by far, the closest round we've seen, with 1,907 voters seeing things my way (for 50.8 percent of the vote) versus 1,848 votes for Brandon's Rover (49.2 percent). Sweet, sweet victory! For this latest round of This or That, I've roped Editor Greg Migliore into what I think is a rather fun debate. We've each chosen our favorite terrible cars, setting a price limit of $10,000 to make sure neither of us went too crazy with our automotive atrocities. I think we've both chosen terribly... and I mean that in the best way possible. 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 Jeremy Korzeniewski: Why It's Terrible: Taken in isolation, the Chrysler Crossfire isn't necessarily a terrible car. In fact, it drives pretty darn well, and there's a lot of solid engineering under its slinky shape. Problem is, that engineering was already rather long in the tooth well before Chrysler ever got its hands on it, having come from Mercedes-Benz, which used the basic chassis and drivetrain in a previous version of its SLK coupe and roadster. Granted, the SLK was an okay car, too, but even when new, it hardly set the world on fire with sporty driving dynamics. Chrysler took these decent-but-no-more bits and pieces from the Mercedes parts bin – remember, this car was conceived in the disastrous Merger Of Equals days – and covered them with a rather attractive hard-candy shell. Unfortunately, the super sporty shape wrote checks in the minds of buyers that its well-worn mechanicals were simply unable to cash, though an injection of power courtesy of a supercharged V6 engine in the SRT6 model, as seen here, certainly helped ease some of those woes. In the end, Chrysler was left with a so-called halo car that looked the part but never quite performed the part. It was almost universally panned by critics as an overpriced parts-bin special, which, I must add, was damningly accurate. As a result, sales were very slow, and within the first few months, dealers were clearancing the car at cut-rate prices, just to keep them from taking up too much of the showroom floor. Why It's Not That Terrible, After All: I can speak from personal experience when discussing the Chrysler Crossfire. You see, I owned one. Well, sort of...

GM isn't liable for punitive damages in ignition switch cases

NEW YORK — A federal appeals court said General Motors is not liable for punitive damages over accidents that occurred after its 2009 bankruptcy and involved vehicles it produced earlier, including vehicles with faulty ignition switches. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said on Tuesday that the automaker did not agree to contractually assume liability for punitive damages as part of its federally-backed Chapter 11 reorganization. GM filed for bankruptcy in June 2009, and its best assets were transferred to a new Detroit-based company with the same name. The other assets and many liabilities stayed with "Old GM," which is also known as Motors Liquidation Co. Tuesday's 3-0 decision may help GM reduce its ultimate exposure in nationwide litigation over defective ignition switches in several Chevrolet, Pontiac and Saturn models. It is also a defeat for drivers involved in post-bankruptcy accidents, including those who collided with older GM vehicles driven by others, as well as their law firms. The ignition switch defect could cause engine stalls and keep airbags from deploying, and has been linked to 124 deaths. A lawyer for the drivers and their law firms did not immediately respond to requests for comment. GM had no comment. Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs said GM's agreement to acquire assets "free and clear" of most liabilities excused it from punitive damages claims for Old GM's conduct. He also noted that the judge who oversaw the bankruptcy concluded that the new company could not be liable for claims that the "deeply insolvent" Old GM would never have paid. The decision upheld a May 2018 ruling by U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan, who oversees the ignition switch litigation. Drivers have sought a variety of damages in that litigation, including for declining resale values. GM has recalled more than 2.6 million vehicles since 2014 over ignition switch problems. It has also paid more than $2.6 billion in related penalties and settlements, including $900 million to settle a U.S. Department of Justice criminal case. The case is In re: Motors Liquidation Co, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 18-1940. Government/Legal Chevrolet Pontiac Saturn Safety gm ignition switch