RE: The four-cylinder Porsche is back!

[DonkeyApple]

Ares said:

DonkeyApple said:

But I don't see any purpose to the low performance ones. LR can get away with it as they are more about wafting but to me Porsche is synonymous with arriving somewhere far sooner than you need to be there, having set off later than you should have.

Edited by DonkeyApple on Friday 25th April 10:32

I guess its people that want an SUV, don't want to be bankrupt with 20mpg consumption but still want something less agricultural (or cheap and stty) than the none-premium SUVs. Freelander is nice, Evoque is far nicer.

Probably right.

Seems odd to think that if you haven't enough money and don't want to drive fast then you can buy a Porsche.

I do wish that as a brand they stopped making the 'Volks Wagons'.

[Ares]

DonkeyApple said:

Ares said:

DonkeyApple said:

But I don't see any purpose to the low performance ones. LR can get away with it as they are more about wafting but to me Porsche is synonymous with arriving somewhere far sooner than you need to be there, having set off later than you should have.

Edited by DonkeyApple on Friday 25th April 10:32

I guess its people that want an SUV, don't want to be bankrupt with 20mpg consumption but still want something less agricultural (or cheap and stty) than the none-premium SUVs. Freelander is nice, Evoque is far nicer.

Probably right.

Seems odd to think that if you haven't enough money and don't want to drive fast then you can buy a Porsche.

I do wish that as a brand they stopped making the 'Volks Wagons'.

Perhaps Speed and Money are mutually exclusive? Naive to assume that everyone that could afford the top of the range fuel-guzzeler automatically would/should?

Perhaps the buyers will want the quality of build/style/kit/snobbery but don't want to a) race to 60mph in 5 secs, b) lash out £100 to fill up every 300 miles?


I could have afforded the M6 instead of a 640d GC. But when I almost never get the chance to use even the power and performance the 640d provides, the M6 would be even less utilised, but still halve my mpg and double my costs. Real world kicks in sometimes!

[ORD]

I take a different view - if you cannot afford high fuel costs, you are probably kidding yourself to think you can afford a high-end car. Fuel costs differences are tiny in the context of the overall cost of ownership. Why take a crappy 4-cyl engine for the sake of 500 quid a year when you are pissing away 8k in depreciation?

[Willy Nilly]

Ares said:

I guess its people that want an SUV, don't want to be bankrupt with 20mpg consumption but still want something less agricultural (or cheap and stty)

Yes, something a bit less agricultural for a car is a good thing. The level of sophistication on farm machines is totally nu-necessary in a car and some of the electronics can be temperamental and take quite a long time and hour wading through Lord Of The Rings type manuals. I mean, why would you need sub centimeter accuracy on your full authority auto steer to go to the shops. Keep it simple for cars, plebs drive them.

[DonkeyApple]

Ares said:

DonkeyApple said:

Ares said:

DonkeyApple said:

But I don't see any purpose to the low performance ones. LR can get away with it as they are more about wafting but to me Porsche is synonymous with arriving somewhere far sooner than you need to be there, having set off later than you should have.

Edited by DonkeyApple on Friday 25th April 10:32

I guess its people that want an SUV, don't want to be bankrupt with 20mpg consumption but still want something less agricultural (or cheap and stty) than the none-premium SUVs. Freelander is nice, Evoque is far nicer.

Probably right.

Seems odd to think that if you haven't enough money and don't want to drive fast then you can buy a Porsche.

I do wish that as a brand they stopped making the 'Volks Wagons'.

Perhaps Speed and Money are mutually exclusive? Naive to assume that everyone that could afford the top of the range fuel-guzzeler automatically would/should?

Perhaps the buyers will want the quality of build/style/kit/snobbery but don't want to a) race to 60mph in 5 secs, b) lash out £100 to fill up every 300 miles?


I could have afforded the M6 instead of a 640d GC. But when I almost never get the chance to use even the power and performance the 640d provides, the M6 would be even less utilised, but still halve my mpg and double my costs. Real world kicks in sometimes!

So it is about money then.

[ORD]

It is more about the logic of the purchase.

If you are not into cars enough to prefer the 6-cyl, why do you want a Porsche at all? You could (I guess) get all the luxury, etc in a much cheaper car.

Would it be unfair to say that anyone buying a 4-cyl Macan is buying it largely for the badge? I guess that depends on it's pricing relative to the competition (both premium and non-premium badged). What do you actually get that you wouldn't in a luxury spec mid-brand MPV, for example?

For a lot of people, I suspect the Macan is a Quashqui (q spelling) with a nice badge. If that is right, the 4-cyl obv makes a lot of sense in that it reduces the overall price differential between what the customer objectively needs (a spacious family box) and what they are buying (a fairly spacious family box with a posh/sporty badge).

I don't sneer (much) at people for being badge wes, but I think all car enthusiasts should recognise it for what it is.

I can imagine buying a Macan as a nice compromise between my needs and desires (decent handling, fast enough, good engine note) and those of my family (space, comfort, etc). But a 4-cyl seems to me to push the compromise to breaking point.

[Ares]

DonkeyApple said:

Ares said:

DonkeyApple said:

Ares said:

DonkeyApple said:

But I don't see any purpose to the low performance ones. LR can get away with it as they are more about wafting but to me Porsche is synonymous with arriving somewhere far sooner than you need to be there, having set off later than you should have.

Edited by DonkeyApple on Friday 25th April 10:32

I guess its people that want an SUV, don't want to be bankrupt with 20mpg consumption but still want something less agricultural (or cheap and stty) than the none-premium SUVs. Freelander is nice, Evoque is far nicer.

Probably right.

Seems odd to think that if you haven't enough money and don't want to drive fast then you can buy a Porsche.

I do wish that as a brand they stopped making the 'Volks Wagons'.

Perhaps Speed and Money are mutually exclusive? Naive to assume that everyone that could afford the top of the range fuel-guzzeler automatically would/should?

Perhaps the buyers will want the quality of build/style/kit/snobbery but don't want to a) race to 60mph in 5 secs, b) lash out £100 to fill up every 300 miles?


I could have afforded the M6 instead of a 640d GC. But when I almost never get the chance to use even the power and performance the 640d provides, the M6 would be even less utilised, but still halve my mpg and double my costs. Real world kicks in sometimes!

So it is about money then.

No...it's about the frustration of only using 25% of performance rather than 50% and doubling the visit to the fuel station/dealer/off the road/etc. Just no real upside for 90% (99%?) of the time.

[Ares]

ORD said:

It is more about the logic of the purchase.

If you are not into cars enough to prefer the 6-cyl, why do you want a Porsche at all? You could (I guess) get all the luxury, etc in a much cheaper car.

Would it be unfair to say that anyone buying a 4-cyl Macan is buying it largely for the badge? I guess that depends on it's pricing relative to the competition (both premium and non-premium badged). What do you actually get that you wouldn't in a luxury spec mid-brand MPV, for example?

For a lot of people, I suspect the Macan is a Quashqui (q spelling) with a nice badge. If that is right, the 4-cyl obv makes a lot of sense in that it reduces the overall price differential between what the customer objectively needs (a spacious family box) and what they are buying (a fairly spacious family box with a posh/sporty badge).

I don't sneer (much) at people for being badge wes, but I think all car enthusiasts should recognise it for what it is.

I can imagine buying a Macan as a nice compromise between my needs and desires (decent handling, fast enough, good engine note) and those of my family (space, comfort, etc). But a 4-cyl seems to me to push the compromise to breaking point.

So people ONLY buy the Porsche for performance or the badge? What if you want a more quality vehicle, greater exclusivity, less stty-plastic, but just don't mind "only" getting to 60mph in 7 secs rather than 6.
The build/style/fit/comfort of a Macan to a QashQui will be epic. Have you seen inside a Nissan? More plastic than Joan Rivers. It's HORRID! It takes far more than a swanky badge to make it a Porsche.
Or is it a snobbish thing.... a real Porsche should only ever have a flat-6 or it isn't a REAL Porsche?

[ORD]

Ares said:

So people ONLY buy the Porsche for performance or the badge? What if you want a more quality vehicle, greater exclusivity, less stty-plastic, but just don't mind "only" getting to 60mph in 7 secs rather than 6.
The build/style/fit/comfort of a Macan to a QashQui will be epic. Have you seen inside a Nissan? More plastic than Joan Rivers. It's HORRID! It takes far more than a swanky badge to make it a Porsche.
Or is it a snobbish thing.... a real Porsche should only ever have a flat-6 or it isn't a REAL Porsche?

So you look for "exclusivity" (i.e. badge prestige) and call me a "snob" for saying that it is a bit silly to buy a Porsche with a generic engine? Hmmm. I am merely suggesting that a Porsche with a 4-cyl engine is a bit of a strange purchase (unless massively cheaper than the 6-cyl, which it is not).

[DonkeyApple]

Ares said:

DonkeyApple said:

Ares said:

DonkeyApple said:

Ares said:

DonkeyApple said:

But I don't see any purpose to the low performance ones. LR can get away with it as they are more about wafting but to me Porsche is synonymous with arriving somewhere far sooner than you need to be there, having set off later than you should have.

Edited by DonkeyApple on Friday 25th April 10:32

I guess its people that want an SUV, don't want to be bankrupt with 20mpg consumption but still want something less agricultural (or cheap and stty) than the none-premium SUVs. Freelander is nice, Evoque is far nicer.

Probably right.

Seems odd to think that if you haven't enough money and don't want to drive fast then you can buy a Porsche.

I do wish that as a brand they stopped making the 'Volks Wagons'.

Perhaps Speed and Money are mutually exclusive? Naive to assume that everyone that could afford the top of the range fuel-guzzeler automatically would/should?

Perhaps the buyers will want the quality of build/style/kit/snobbery but don't want to a) race to 60mph in 5 secs, b) lash out £100 to fill up every 300 miles?


I could have afforded the M6 instead of a 640d GC. But when I almost never get the chance to use even the power and performance the 640d provides, the M6 would be even less utilised, but still halve my mpg and double my costs. Real world kicks in sometimes!

So it is about money then.

No...it's about the frustration of only using 25% of performance rather than 50% and doubling the visit to the fuel station/dealer/off the road/etc. Just no real upside for 90% (99%?) of the time.

Unless money was not a factor.

[Ares]

ORD said:

Ares said:

So people ONLY buy the Porsche for performance or the badge? What if you want a more quality vehicle, greater exclusivity, less stty-plastic, but just don't mind "only" getting to 60mph in 7 secs rather than 6.
The build/style/fit/comfort of a Macan to a QashQui will be epic. Have you seen inside a Nissan? More plastic than Joan Rivers. It's HORRID! It takes far more than a swanky badge to make it a Porsche.
Or is it a snobbish thing.... a real Porsche should only ever have a flat-6 or it isn't a REAL Porsche?

So you look for "exclusivity" (i.e. badge prestige) and call me a "snob" for saying that it is a bit silly to buy a Porsche with a generic engine? Hmmm. I am merely suggesting that a Porsche with a 4-cyl engine is a bit of a strange purchase (unless massively cheaper than the 6-cyl, which it is not).

I didn't call you a snob regardless. But a Porsche is more than it's engine.
Just because someone doesn't want the extra upsides AND extra downsides of a 6-cyl engine doesn't mean they should be forced to buy an Evoque or be forced to buy a crappier SUV??

[Ares]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Until recently, 300bhp was the preserve of performance cars and 'uber' saloons. Now it's a diesel!
As you say, the world changes. You can look wistfully back at 'halcyon days', or embrace it and enjoy the ride.

[Ares]

DonkeyApple said:

Unless money was not a factor.

Money does not impact increased fuel stops/increased servicing/increased frustration of only using the extra performance 1% of the time/etc

Money will have an impact on the increased fuel cost/servicing cost/tax cost/consumables costs/etc. But as I say, I could have afforded an M6 (or an M5), but upside wasn't worth the downside.

[ORD]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

PDK isn't an auto in the sense you mean it. Driving a car with a torque converter said something that driving a dual clutch just doesn't (although I would still prefer a manual). As the for the not-911 thing - that was always nothing more than motoring journalist nonsense. Nobody with any knowledge or enthusiasm for sports cars thought that. Ever.

Technology changed re manual/auto and (to an extent) diesel. A 4-cyl still sounds like crap and days you value 3mpg more than you do driving a car with a nice engine.

[ORD]

Got ya. In summary, because non-car people don't know something, it isn't the case.