Cayenne - Am I mad?
Discussion
Been looking around for another family car for a while. We hardly do any miles so this car would do 4-5k per annum max. I nearly feel off my chair as to how little a 6-7 year old version of these goes for - what has happened? Is it just large engine and out of fashion or are there really serious issues?
I've done the usual searches and it seems the gearbox can be trouble.
I've done the usual searches and it seems the gearbox can be trouble.
I had a 2003 model 4.5 V8 S for 2 years (purchased at 12 mths old). It was a good car and they only thing that needed replacement (other than tyres & brakes) was the rear parking sensors. A friend currently has a 2005 model V8 S with 75K miles on the clock. He has just had to replace a drive shaft which he was told is a common fault. Fantastic value for money IMHO
No you're not mad.
I decided to plump for a 2004 4.5s as they were pretty cheap to buy and I didn't want a brand new Renault 'paperbag' to run the kids round in.
I also just had a propshaft replaced, and after the sharp frosts last winter I had to replace the coil packs (HT leads) as it was misfiring (cracked coilpack letting in moisture)... Not cheap as it needs 8 of everything obviously.
Anyway. The older ones still look good (for a whaleshark of a car), the power and handling are quite impressive for such a cumbersome looking beast, but I would personally steer away from the massive alloys (stick with 19" or so) as it does make it quite 'firm' driving over anything larger than a gnats kneecap
Fuel usage is frightening to be honest, if you haven't experienced LARGE engined MPG figures before it will come as quite a shock just how much and often you're filling it up!
I decided to plump for a 2004 4.5s as they were pretty cheap to buy and I didn't want a brand new Renault 'paperbag' to run the kids round in.
I also just had a propshaft replaced, and after the sharp frosts last winter I had to replace the coil packs (HT leads) as it was misfiring (cracked coilpack letting in moisture)... Not cheap as it needs 8 of everything obviously.
Anyway. The older ones still look good (for a whaleshark of a car), the power and handling are quite impressive for such a cumbersome looking beast, but I would personally steer away from the massive alloys (stick with 19" or so) as it does make it quite 'firm' driving over anything larger than a gnats kneecap
Fuel usage is frightening to be honest, if you haven't experienced LARGE engined MPG figures before it will come as quite a shock just how much and often you're filling it up!
A911DOM said:
No you're not mad.
I would personally steer away from the massive alloys (stick with 19" or so) as it does make it quite 'firm' driving over anything larger than a gnats kneecap
Have to agree, I have the 20" rims and would think the 19" would have the looks / ride balance betterI would personally steer away from the massive alloys (stick with 19" or so) as it does make it quite 'firm' driving over anything larger than a gnats kneecap
Love mine to bits. It will one day get replaced with another.
20" rims and i keep it on the lowest air setting and stiffest damping all the time. It could/should be stiffer IMO. I would love to drive one with even firmer suspension and harder bushings and bars. Th chassis is well up for it. Cracking all purpose cars.
20" rims and i keep it on the lowest air setting and stiffest damping all the time. It could/should be stiffer IMO. I would love to drive one with even firmer suspension and harder bushings and bars. Th chassis is well up for it. Cracking all purpose cars.
had one for 2 years - 3.2 v6..its on 20's and the ride, as said above, can be a pain on anything over than fresh tarmac....but they look good! Yep - probably depreciated like a bestard in the time ive had it, but its a lot of car for the money.
What would you rather have a euro paper bag as said or a well built fully loaded Porsche - do it!
What would you rather have a euro paper bag as said or a well built fully loaded Porsche - do it!
Thanks guys.
On the fuel point - I fully expect high teen / low twenties in terms of MPG. The Volvo only manages mid 20's on average and thats a diesel.... (underpowered car and heavy right foot!).
Plus we only do very little miles, so I'm not that concerned.
The choice is 3.2 or 4.5 - I know what I really want but I just need to be persuaded (if you know what I mean).
On the fuel point - I fully expect high teen / low twenties in terms of MPG. The Volvo only manages mid 20's on average and thats a diesel.... (underpowered car and heavy right foot!).
Plus we only do very little miles, so I'm not that concerned.
The choice is 3.2 or 4.5 - I know what I really want
but I just need to be persuaded (if you know what I mean).essexboi said:
you must be tanking it on the m'way?
Sometimes, sometimes not.I personally think you only ever get high teens in these things over a long period of time if you drive REALLY sensibly and very sympathetic to achieving a high MPG, like coasting up to traffic lights, never giving it WOT or going beyond 2500rpm, using cruise control and absolutely no pulses of pressure on the throttle on the Mway etc. People's driving varies massively in my experience and when folk recount great MPG figures then never really convey to you just how well they drive with regard to fuel economy.
I've never driven like that and would find it way too painful to do so, pointless as well and completely antithetical to my philosophy on life. I completely dote on the sensations of motion, weight, acceleration and decelleration etc. so I am a constant fiddler whether that be with the throttle, sterring or brakes; I can't bear a steady state with no change in anything. I also do give it plenty of beans from time to time and use the thing to its limits, cornering/braking/acceleration. That said, DavidRSR's experience seems to match mine exactly as does other folk I have spoken to so I'm not that abnormal. I did do a whole tank once on the Mway and taking it at a very steady 70mph just as an experiment but I think i only got 420 miles or so so im not convinced i could improve much upon 16.5ish even if I tried.
Edited by jackal on Friday 3rd August 14:33
jackal said:
essexboi said:
you must be tanking it on the m'way?
Sometimes, sometimes not.I personally think you only ever get high teens in these things over a long period of time if you drive REALLY sensibly and very sympathetic to achieving a high MPG, like coasting up to traffic lights, never giving it WOT or going beyond 2500rpm, using cruise control and absolutely no pulses of pressure on the throttle on the Mway etc. People's driving varies massively in my experience and when folk recount great MPG figures then never really convey to you just how well they drive with regard to fuel economy.
I've never driven like that and would find it way too painful to do so, pointless as well and completely antithetical to my philosophy on life. I completely dote on the sensations of motion, weight, acceleration and decelleration etc. so I am a constant fiddler whether that be with the throttle, sterring or brakes; I can't bear a steady state with no change in anything. I also do give it plenty of beans from time to time and use the thing to its limits, cornering/braking/acceleration. That said, DavidRSR's experience seems to match mine exactly as does other folk I have spoken to so I'm not that abnormal. I did do a whole tank once on the Mway and taking it at a very steady 70mph just as an experiment but I think i only got 420 miles or so so im not convinced i could improve much upon 16.5ish even if I tried.
Edited by jackal on Friday 3rd August 14:33
24mpg is pie in the sky though, even if the PCM says low 20's is it really?! c400 to a tank seems about right in normal circumstances. although i did do deepest essex to Sheffield and back on one tank (@70 ish) - 15 miles on the range when arrived home and up to 560 on the range at the outset - so whats that in real money?
M'way pushing on can be depressing - you can easily cane a tank of SUL in no time
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff