Is supercar flipping right or wrong?

Yes or no?

3y ago
73.4K

Flipping supercars, for those that don't know, is where a person gets an allocated build slot and instantly sells for a profit once delivered. It irks me something chronic, but do you agree with it or not?

A prime example of this is with the Porsche 911 R. In the world of automatic gearboxes we are entering, Porsche decided to listen to the purists and stuck a manual gearbox in what is essentially a GT3 with a manual gearbox and a GT3 RS 4.0-litre engine. It's obvious that these will only appreciate and due to that reason, flippers pounced on it.

When brand new they demanded a price of £140,000 - a fair price. Once the first deliveries started they began to pop up for sale online for £200,000 by flippers which instantly raised the average price. If you want one in 2017 you'll be looking at over £500,000 with some for sale at almost £1 million meaning genuinely interested owners can't have one unless they have a huge disposable income.

They're no longer seen as a vehicle, but an asset.

We recently wrote about Aston Martin threatening buyers of their new hypercar, the Valkyrie that if they flip it for a profit they will be banned from any new special cars. You can read more about that by clicking the link below.

Join In

Comments (28)

  • I think that in instances where a car manufacturer rewards its loyal customers by offering them first rights to buy exclusive limited run cars you're kinda spitting in their face by then flipping it. Sure, you're probably paying a hell of a lot to buy it and you've probably already spent a hell of a lot to be on the exclusives list in the first place, but it's loyalty and trust you've earned from the company for them to offer you first rights to buy a car. To then just flip it breaks that trust. I think Aston are right to make the call they made.

      3 years ago
  • Flipping is wrong, I ordered a GT3, someone interested to take over my contract?

      3 years ago
  • I think Ferrari's first reaction to flipping, and I think the very first instance of flipping ever seen, was the best, way back in 1987. They were angry about flipping because they felt that that money should come to the factory, not to the buyers. So they decided the F40 was no longer limited production. Instead of 500 they continued building (and developing) the car, eventually building almost 1400 cars.

      3 years ago
  • If the first buyer takes physical delivery of the vehicle (i.e.: paid in full, unincumbered title) from the dealer then said vehicle is that buyers property and s/he is entitled to do whatever s/he wants with it including but not limited to selling it for whatever the market may bear. That said, I also feel the manufacturer is entitled to refuse future sales of their limited production/specialty vehicles to former buyers who engage in this practice.

      3 years ago
  • FFS we live in a capitalist society Buy cheap sell high its how you get to retire with nice things

      3 years ago
    • . . . and how one can afford such cars. It's a complex issue but until there are clear "rules of engagement" profiteers will keep doing their thing. I will add positions on a marks delivery list should not be flippable and any deposit put down to...

      Read more
        3 years ago
28