Porsche Cayenne - Advert they dont want you to see
Discussion
I was lent a Cayenne Turbo for the day and it was superb. Got very close to deciding to buy one as a result.If you sit in it, its very impressive and even the base version is good to drive.
On top of that its hardly any different in price to the VW, when you factor in the standard leather seats and equipment on the base version.
£34k is also what Volvo charge for a V70 estate and I know which I think is the best.
A new dechrome option has been released which rids the car of the horrid chrome around the windows and tailgate and tidies up the looks immeasurably.
Bennno
On top of that its hardly any different in price to the VW, when you factor in the standard leather seats and equipment on the base version.
£34k is also what Volvo charge for a V70 estate and I know which I think is the best.
A new dechrome option has been released which rids the car of the horrid chrome around the windows and tailgate and tidies up the looks immeasurably.
Bennno
Butzi said:
I'm sure it's a very good car, after all, Porsche has spent enough time and money on it, so you wouldn't expect any less. It just make some of us feel a bit bitter thinking that because of it Porsche had stopped racing, something it always did best.
...Cayenne-bashing seems to go on and on, but the point that all Porsche enthusiasts have to accept is that Porsche can only continue to develop new sports cars (998 et al) if it has a 'cash cow' bringing in a steady stream of working capital. The Cayenne is such a cow (in looks as well, some might say)
Racing, whilst being glamorous and exciting, is nonetheless a 'black hole' for cash resources. If Porsche wants to survive as a maker of truly excellent sports cars and GT's, they have to diversify their product range.
With the Cayenne even, it's not as if Porsche has done a bad job (apart from external aesthetics) - the Cayenne Turbo is in fact a masterpiece of engineering. Who would have thought that a 4x4 could be almost as good off-road as a Range Rover and as fast around a track as an M3 (independently verfied)!
I think Porsche knows what it's doing, so let's stop the whinging unless they start to sell lawn mowers and tractors through their showrooms.
bennno said:
A new dechrome option has been released which rids the car of the horrid chrome around the windows and tailgate and tidies up the looks immeasurably.
Bennno
At last! they listened to me then...or borrowed some bits from VW, whose Tuareg looks immesurably better without the contrived nose treatment of the Cayenne.
My next prediction? The Cayenne loses that nasty front nose and we get something more conventional...but just how do they make the car look good with 997 style lights?...or do they abandon totally the attempt to link Cayenne DNA with 911 series?
wax lyrical said:
I'm sure it's a very good car, after all, Porsche has spent enough time and money on it, so you wouldn't expect any less. It just make some of us feel a bit bitter thinking that because of it Porsche had stopped racing, something it always did best.
...Cayenne-bashing seems to go on and on, but the point that all Porsche enthusiasts have to accept is that Porsche can only continue to develop new sports cars (998 et al) if it has a 'cash cow' bringing in a steady stream of working capital. The Cayenne is such a cow (in looks as well, some might say)
Racing, whilst being glamorous and exciting, is nonetheless a 'black hole' for cash resources. If Porsche wants to survive as a maker of truly excellent sports cars and GT's, they have to diversify their product range.
With the Cayenne even, it's not as if Porsche has done a bad job (apart from external aesthetics) - the Cayenne Turbo is in fact a masterpiece of engineering. Who would have thought that a 4x4 could be almost as good off-road as a Range Rover and as fast around a track as an M3 (independently verfied)!
I think Porsche knows what it's doing, so let's stop the whinging unless they start to sell lawn mowers and tractors through their showrooms.
Not sure I agree with you on this one. I always thought Porsche make more money consulting then selling cars (again, willing to be corrected but sure I read this somewhere).
And I do Cayanne bashing because...well...its NOT what Porshce do. Just because they CAN do it, doesnt mean they SHOULD. In a similar vein, Ferrari could do a 360 Diesel. They could, but should they???
Of course not.
Or TVR "diversifying" into a slightly weak-kneed shopping car "ideal for the city-commuter, but with the famous TVR badge. Range of 1.6 and 2 litre engines available.
Again, of course not. That's not what Ferrari, or TVR is there for. And neither is Porsche. As a design study to show off what their engineers are capable of then maybe- but not a production model, in a faciltiy in East Germany, and not at the expense of motor sport. Please Porsche. You build sports cars. Its more then enough.
Don't agree at all with the Cayenne bashing.
If it was not for the Cayenne and its ability to increase Porsche production with HUGE margins of profitability ( after all, VAG paid for most of thedevelopment costs) then Porsche would be taken over by GM or Ford and be a satellite of a big brand.
Porsche remains highly profitable and independent because of the Cayenne. Hooray to that.
Imagine the moaning and whingeing if Porsche was taken over by GM !
If it was not for the Cayenne and its ability to increase Porsche production with HUGE margins of profitability ( after all, VAG paid for most of thedevelopment costs) then Porsche would be taken over by GM or Ford and be a satellite of a big brand.
Porsche remains highly profitable and independent because of the Cayenne. Hooray to that.
Imagine the moaning and whingeing if Porsche was taken over by GM !
toppstuff said:
Don't agree at all with the Cayenne bashing.
If it was not for the Cayenne and its ability to increase Porsche production with HUGE margins of profitability ( after all, VAG paid for most of thedevelopment costs) then Porsche would be taken over by GM or Ford and be a satellite of a big brand.
Porsche remains highly profitable and independent because of the Cayenne. Hooray to that.
Imagine the moaning and whingeing if Porsche was taken over by GM !
that would be the end.
BTW (did you try tayyabs??)
PetrolTed said:
It's ability to make progress like a sports saloon is incredible.
Personally, I'd prefer rich folks 'making progress like in a sports saloon' not being given the option of doing so in a 2.5 tonne behemoth of which the front bumper sits about as high as my window line. YMMV.
900T-R said:
It's ability to make progress like a sports saloon is incredible.
Personally, I'd prefer rich folks 'making progress like in a sports saloon' not being given the option of doing so in a 2.5 tonne behemoth of which the front bumper sits about as high as my window line. YMMV.
And there's lots of people out there who would prefer that manufacturers not be allowed to make cars that can exceed the speed limit.
This is a free society. If people have the money to spend they the can choose what to buy with it - and they may well not agree with your views.
That was a somewhat crass statement, sir.
900T-R said:
It's ability to make progress like a sports saloon is incredible.
Personally, I'd prefer rich folks 'making progress like in a sports saloon' not being given the option of doing so in a 2.5 tonne behemoth of which the front bumper sits about as high as my window line. YMMV.
I'm with you matey - 4x4s are fine for muddy countryside, towing, snowy winters, etc. But used as school run vehicles we're entering into car war syndrome. Mines a chieftain tank please...
Neils. I know what you mean about Range Rovers being used by School Run Mum for purposes which seem mad.
But you know...they've worked for it, they can now afford it, and what they want is a nice big comfortable 4x4..who is to say they shouldn't have one? Perhaps they go to gymkhana's at the weekend and don't want two cars. Perhaps they are off-road enthusiasts. Perhaps they just like the way the thing looks. It doesn't matter. Its their choice. They'd think your decision to have a 993 bi-turbo (very nice) as a toy utterly mad - after all - the seats are only good for two little'uns in the back and the fuel consumption is terrible just like their Rangey/Cayenne/Lancruiser. They probably think such cars should be banned because, after all, they just encourage you to drive quickly which we all know kills little children for miles around...
Goodness me! I thought on PH we tried not to be critical of others car choices. Aren't *we* "pro-car"?
I don't like 4x4s used exclusively in Central London either - but its their choice - just as it is mine to drive sports cars.
But you know...they've worked for it, they can now afford it, and what they want is a nice big comfortable 4x4..who is to say they shouldn't have one? Perhaps they go to gymkhana's at the weekend and don't want two cars. Perhaps they are off-road enthusiasts. Perhaps they just like the way the thing looks. It doesn't matter. Its their choice. They'd think your decision to have a 993 bi-turbo (very nice) as a toy utterly mad - after all - the seats are only good for two little'uns in the back and the fuel consumption is terrible just like their Rangey/Cayenne/Lancruiser. They probably think such cars should be banned because, after all, they just encourage you to drive quickly which we all know kills little children for miles around...
Goodness me! I thought on PH we tried not to be critical of others car choices. Aren't *we* "pro-car"?
I don't like 4x4s used exclusively in Central London either - but its their choice - just as it is mine to drive sports cars.
Don said:
PetrolTed said:
It's ability to make progress like a sports saloon is incredible.
Personally, I'd prefer rich folks 'making progress like in a sports saloon' not being given the option of doing so in a 2.5 tonne behemoth of which the front bumper sits about as high as my window line. YMMV.
And there's lots of people out there who would prefer that manufacturers not be allowed to make cars that can exceed the speed limit.
This is a free society. If people have the money to spend they the can choose what to buy with it - and they may well not agree with your views.
That was a somewhat crass statement, sir.
Research has shown over and over that in SUV-car crashes the occupants of the car are three times as likely to die as in car-car crashes, whilst at the same time SUV's aren't overly safe for their own occupants either. What I think is crass, is that where back in the '70s the MGB needed its ride height raised (and thus it's road chracteristics ruined) to comply with bumper height regulations, now 'cars' are let onto our roads that obviously don't comply with anything because of an apparent loophole in regulations.
In safety thinking 'compatibility' as in the luxury saloon days (big car = large, soft crumple zone - small car = short, hard crumple zone) has made way for a 'my car is bigger than yours' attitude which IMO brings us one step back to the Neanderthal.
For sure it looks like folks given the 'freedom' to inflict maximum damage to their fellow road users are hellbent on exercising that right, given the amount of tailgating, priority-taken-instead-of-given, cellphone yapping Cayenne and X5 drivers I encounter on the road.
From my observations, the bling-wheels-and-dark-windows-fraction within Cayenne/X5/Merc ML owners to be about 80% so it's pretty obvious what part of society these cars appeal to.
Don said:
Neils. I know what you mean about Range Rovers being used by School Run Mum for purposes which seem mad.
But you know...they've worked for it, they can now afford it, and what they want is a nice big comfortable 4x4..who is to say they shouldn't have one? Perhaps they go to gymkhana's at the weekend and don't want two cars. Perhaps they are off-road enthusiasts. Perhaps they just like the way the thing looks. It doesn't matter. Its their choice. They'd think your decision to have a 993 bi-turbo (very nice) as a toy utterly mad - after all - the seats are only good for two little'uns in the back and the fuel consumption is terrible just like their Rangey/Cayenne/Lancruiser. They probably think such cars should be banned because, after all, they just encourage you to drive quickly which we all know kills little children for miles around...
Goodness me! I thought on PH we tried not to be critical of others car choices. Aren't *we* "pro-car"?
I don't like 4x4s used exclusively in Central London either - but its their choice - just as it is mine to drive sports cars.
I sympathise with your point of view and feel a tad guilty because it really should be PH'ers against repression of british drivers, including those who choose 4x4s!
My objection is purely on safety grounds - you'll be aware that numerous accidents have shown the tendency of 4x4s to ride up over other "normal" cars crushing all occupants, so even low speed accidents dramatically increase in gravity. In the US some well publicised accidents with enormous SUV's squishing youngsters in little cars has led to Ford putting a secondary bumper low down to try to stop the "ride over effect".
All this to say that it makes me wonder what vehicles I'll be buying for my kids in 10 to 15 years time. If the current popularity of 4x4 continues to grow, I'll have problems putting them in little cars...
Edited to add: impressive nonetheless that Porsche have made a 4x4 that handles - if all manufacturers managed this then these vehicles would be better equipped to avoid accidents without rolling over.
>> Edited by nel on Friday 20th August 14:20
Don said:
Neils. I know what you mean about Range Rovers being used by School Run Mum for purposes which seem mad.
They'd think your decision to have a 993 bi-turbo (very nice) as a toy utterly mad - after all - the seats are only good for two little'uns in the back and the fuel consumption is terrible just like their Rangey/Cayenne/Lancruiser.
That's your problem. But at least if you're going to crash into another car, you're not going to run over it...
That said, it's a bit strange that 17 year olds can buy a 993TT with the ink on their driving license still wet, whilst we similarly don't allow new holders of a bike license to get on an R1. Surely this must be the other way round - if you crash your bike you'll likely be the one that gets killed, while a car in the wrong hands is definitely a lethal missile to everyone else on the road...
Again, the rub with SUVs is that they are supposed to be commercial vehicles and thus exempt from legislation that applies to passenger cars. So, given the higher likeliness of inflicting damage to others, it's fair to say that the responsibility that comes with running one is greater than, say, driving a Micra. Conversely, I think I am not alone in my observation that it's often less able and observant drivers that choose a big f_off truck because it makes them feel 'safe' (to the detriment of others).
So there you have it - numpties driving BIG vehicles that use regulation loopholes meant for vehicles that get driven by professionals. Freedom of choice - cool.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff