"The latest version makes no sense at all. The consumer who buys this rather than its similarly priced and brilliant sister, the 500, is nuts".
Happy -- for the moment -- to be "nuts", then...!
Sorry: but as cute as the 500 is (and I do understand its attractions: even though I used a slightly disparaging word...!), I found the ride to be a bit harsh, compared to the Panda. Also struggled to find a comfortable seating position (probably because the Panda is "a bit higher off the ground" than the 500, and many of its competitors...). And, I'm afraid, there's simply not enough room in the back...! :nutter:
Mr Rutherford should really know better... (and if I didn't know better: I'd believe he was writing only for effect...):
- Not all of us buy with our focus on the depreciation tables.... If our Panda ever makes it out of Pomigliano d'Arco, we plan on keeping it for as long as it lasts. It is to be driven and looked after, not bought as an investment. Otherwise, I would have bought a DB5, or some commercial property. (If only I had that sort of dosh...!)
- Some of us buy for need, rather than want... -- although I obviously understand that cars can be emotional/desirable objects. (Why else is there currently an E-Type in my profile picture/avatar...?!)