That's not a possibility - that's a reality !!!
Look, I am starting to think you are splitting hairs with your premises. I am talking about the actual consumer behaviour of big ticket items. Sure, there are pure second handers who purchase smaller branded items purely to garner respect for others, but on a huge purchase like a car, prestige and ostentation are but ONE of many variables in their decision making process. There are too many factors involved - like practicality, comfort, fuel consumption, financing, performance, after-market service, maintenance and so on. There are extreme purists on one end, but it is my take that the rest fall in between the spectrum. To say there are pure second handers on the other end of the spectrum on automobile purchases is to ignore the various intricacies working the minds of a potential buyers. It may work on fashion and lifestyle products from a $100 tee to a $4000 mobile phone, but I find it hard to accept your hypothesis that there are people who are pure second handers - those who buy a car, not that they like it, but strictly to show-off.
In that case, the concept of Saify and Toto "ganging up" against you and that you, not being a conformist, are ostracised, should not appear in your arguments. It is a simple fact that they think alike and vocalise their thoughts at the same time.
Again, studying polarity is useless if they are exceptions rather than the norm. In the world of automobiles, there is a school of technical purists, like yourself. There is also a mass market of car enthusiasts who, perhaps not in your purest definition of "enthusiasts", are looking at cars from a multi-facted perspectives. And on the other extreme, those whom you theorised buying cars solely to impress, that I find is a pure statistical exercise on improbability. Studying these exceptions, if they do exist around you, will yield nothing constructive at all. Waste of time.
As for the formation of the "gangs", it is purely perspective. This forum, in totality, is a gang by itself on certain issues. The catalyst of the formation? All units of the "gang" stand on the same side of belief, attitude, lifestyles and values. In this respect, you could be a "gang member" of group A on issue A, but a "gang member" of group B on issue B. It is simply a trait of social behaviour. Why are you so bothered by it, if you could stand firm on your stance?