New Cayenne Diesel - Amazing Figures !

[Geneve]

Just seen the figures for the all new Cayenne Diesel:

- 0-100km in 7.8 sec
- Max Speed 136 mph
- Max Torque 550 Nm @ 2000-2250 rpm
- Combined Fuel Consumption - 38.2 mpg
- CO2 Emissions 195 g/km
- Price £44,178 (+ options, obviously)

Quite impressed.

[Sandy59]

And dare I say it's even starting to look quite presentable now ??

[alz]

I struggle to get 25mpg with mine on constant motorway driving, so if it gets anywhere near 38mpg I would be extremely surprised.

[Globulator]

OK I'm going to be unduly negative here, advance warning!

Cayenne = pointless lardy tank.

Still only 240bhp with a weight of 2,315 kg.
For that same £44k you can get the Boxster-S, 310bhp pushing 1,430 kg

Sure if you throw enough fuel and tyre money at it you almost get to performance levels of a leisurely driven standard boxster but with half the fun having to endure that rev-free diesel engine. Oh joy. Also you (obviously) STILL get better mileage out of the Boxster-S.

I still have to question why anyone would want such a heavy machine - 885kg of extra pig iron and dead weight - what is the point of these cars?? Is it so you can win a bet on how much money you spend on running it? Also they are all pig fugly except for the turbo, which just looks like a car of giant wallet sapping proportions.

I guess I'm not the ideal buyer of one of these am I?


So come on - tell me the good points - people - I'm curious what they are..

Edited by Globulator on Sunday 14th March 14:45

[FlashmanChop]

So you can transport daughters ponies around, tow the trailer out of muddy fields...

[Globulator]

FlashmanChop said:

So you can transport daughters ponies around, tow the trailer out of muddy fields...

Is it better than a Rangerover or Landrover for that?

...and what do the other 99.9% of owners see in it?

[DSM2]

Sandy59 said:

And dare I say it's even starting to look quite presentable now ??

Ummmmmmmmmmmm.............nah!

[RichB]

Geneve said:

Combined Fuel Consumption - 38.2 mpg

I don't accept manufacturer's figures for fuel consumption at all. The supposed 'combined' mpg of my current XC60 is claimed to be 37.7 yet the computer currently says I'm getting 28.9 and that's taking into account my journey to work is a 60 mile haul on the M4.

[Geneve]

Globulator said:

So come on - tell me the good points - people - I'm curious what they are..

Well, for a start, its an SUV so it can't be compared with a Boxster.

Porsche made the decision to move into this sector with the original Cayenne, and I agree that the size, weight, styling, running costs.....all alienated many traditional Porsche enthusiasts and any posts on here regarding the Cayenne usually generate their fair share of cynical comments.

But, the luxury SUV market is big,and many people can justify the need for a comfortable, practical, 4wd, 'lifestyle' family wagon - hence the popularity of Discos, Range Rovers, X5s, XC90s, MLs, and all the Japanese iterations.

Now, I never had much affection for the old Cayenne, but I've seen the new models at Geneva, and read the various reviews, and for anyone in the market for such a vehicle I reckon it could well emerge as the 'must have' market leader.

It really does look much better - far better balanced styling, prettier (not difficult), lighter and sits lower, although probably still sensitive to colour and wheel choices. The interior is fantastic and the fit, finish and build quality puts Land Rover to shame.

It will be interesting to read the early road tests, but Porsche are claiming it will drive better (on or off road), be more refined, vastly more economical, and cheaper to run.

Like it or loathe it, I think it will be a big success.

[kbf1981]

Globulator said:

FlashmanChop said:

So you can transport daughters ponies around, tow the trailer out of muddy fields...

Is it better than a Rangerover or Landrover for that?

...and what do the other 99.9% of owners see in it?

Why do people think the Range Rover is so awesome?

I've driven one....it felt like it was going to fall over. I prefer my Landcruiser any day, which is 14yrs old now. I much prefer the new VX Amazon Landcruiser that's cheaper, more luxurious and better than the Range Rover.

I don't get the appeal of these cars. The RRS feels cheap with cheap plastics. The FFRR doesn't age well inside (seen a few 2nd hand ones), and is not fun to drive.

If I had a family to transport, I'd probably go for a "cheap" X5......however between the Cayenne and RR, the Porsche every day of the week.

[sjn2004]

kbf1981 said:

The FFRR doesn't age well inside (seen a few 2nd hand ones), and is not fun to drive.

Looked at them about 3 years ago, all at main dealers, average miles or less but the interiors looked like they had been around the world a few times. Salesman's response to why they all looked like st was "it is a second hand car you know".

[shoestring7]

FlashmanChop said:

So you can transport daughters ponies around, tow the trailer out of muddy fields...

You also get an extra 885kg's of Porsche-ness for free! :-)

SS7

[Globulator]

shoestring7 said:

FlashmanChop said:

So you can transport daughters ponies around, tow the trailer out of muddy fields...

You also get an extra 885kg's of Porsche-ness for free! :-)

SS7

That can't be far off what the original 550 spyder weighed!


BTW point noted about the range/land rovers, substitute any cheaper to buy/insure/run 4x4 workhorse of your choice. Porsche are not alone at producing daft SUVs, look at BMW, no shortage of buyers either it seems, all scrambling to throw away their money on sub-standard performance.

If it was me I'd get A.N.Other 4x4 workhorse + a sports car, a proper tool for each job, but then I'm in a minority. I can't even say I hope it does well, once one of those damn thing gets in front of me there goes my view of the road and here comes belches of particulate diesel soot. Oh joy.

[hot66]

Big 4x4's fit a specific role for a lot of us + some of us do still have a proper tool for each job

I have an ML for family duty, a 120d for economical drives , trip to the shops etc, a 993 cabrio for summer sun, opentop fun & a 1973 2.4S for pure 'driving' pleasure.

[davemac250]

Have the Touareg in 3.0Tdi 240 guise.

Use the 500nm and 25mpg is more likely.

Have never seen above 30mpg. I don't think it has even come close.

[kbf1981]

Globulator said:

shoestring7 said:

FlashmanChop said:

So you can transport daughters ponies around, tow the trailer out of muddy fields...

You also get an extra 885kg's of Porsche-ness for free! :-)

SS7

That can't be far off what the original 550 spyder weighed!


BTW point noted about the range/land rovers, substitute any cheaper to buy/insure/run 4x4 workhorse of your choice. Porsche are not alone at producing daft SUVs, look at BMW, no shortage of buyers either it seems, all scrambling to throw away their money on sub-standard performance.

If it was me I'd get A.N.Other 4x4 workhorse + a sports car, a proper tool for each job, but then I'm in a minority. I can't even say I hope it does well, once one of those damn thing gets in front of me there goes my view of the road and here comes belches of particulate diesel soot. Oh joy.

This is what I have.

A 1993 Toyota Landcruiser for 90% of short trips and lugging stuff above. A Cayman S for fun.

[ultraman]

I have a 993 Carrera 4. Getting the wife a Cayenne 4.5s to replace her Volvo XC90. With comfort and air suspension it drives and performs better than a 2010 Range Rover Sport. Trust me I have driven both. I think it is the best 4x4 out there if you have the air suspension, sports exhaust. With the winters we have been experiencing, a powerful 4x4 makes alot of sense.

[shoestring7]

Globulator said:

That can't be far off what the original 550 spyder weighed!

I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't nearer 500kgs. Porsche built one hillclimb special(907 kangaroo?) that was nearer 350kgs dry.

>SS7

[christer]

Globulator said:

OK I'm going to be unduly negative here, advance warning!

Cayenne = pointless lardy tank.

Still only 240bhp with a weight of 2,315 kg.
For that same £44k you can get the Boxster-S, 310bhp pushing 1,430 kg

Sure if you throw enough fuel and tyre money at it you almost get to performance levels of a leisurely driven standard boxster but with half the fun having to endure that rev-free diesel engine. Oh joy. Also you (obviously) STILL get better mileage out of the Boxster-S.

I still have to question why anyone would want such a heavy machine - 885kg of extra pig iron and dead weight - what is the point of these cars?? Is it so you can win a bet on how much money you spend on running it? Also they are all pig fugly except for the turbo, which just looks like a car of giant wallet sapping proportions.

I guess I'm not the ideal buyer of one of these am I?


So come on - tell me the good points - people - I'm curious what they are..

Edited by Globulator on Sunday 14th March 14:45

what a pointless and limited post. you know why

[Badjwa]

A celebration of Porsches demise